If they can do the work, why not? The research indicates it cuts down recidivism, so that's good enough for me. A lot better than forcing them to make license plate or whatever other inane shit they do these days.
QuoteThrow the Book at Them
Should prisons offer degree-granting courses to convicted felons? An influential conservative voice says yes.
By Leon Neyfakh
This past Saturday, 53 inmates at Eastern Correctional Facility, a maximum-security prison in upstate New York, were awarded college diplomas as part of the Bard Prison Initiative, a program that enables convicted felons to take courses and earn degrees while incarcerated. Among the graduates were newly minted experts in advanced math, literature, and social studies who had written senior papers with titles like "The Artistic Excursions of Thomas Hardy" and "Combinatorial Game Symmetry: Encountering the Odd Multiple of K." As they walked across the stage in the prison auditorium, their olive-green uniforms concealed under flowing robes, family members and friends cheered from their seats. Guards assigned to monitor the event stood by chewing gum and listening to their burbling walkie-talkies.
At one point, a young man who has been incarcerated since he was 16 on a second-degree–manslaughter conviction delivered a speech about how profoundly his life had changed when he was accepted into the Bard program five years into his sentence. He quoted Dostoevsky, whom he called his favorite storyteller, saying that "the degree of civilization in a society can be judged by entering its prisons." At the end of his remarks, he broke into a sob as he addressed his father, who was sitting in the audience alongside his mother and two siblings. "I'm sorry I have dishonored our family. I'm sorry for having put you through such unbearable pain," the man said. "But today, let us smile. We have cried too long."
That moment may have been the emotional climax of the morning's proceedings. But what distinguished Saturday's ceremony from the 11 others that the Bard Prison Initiative (BPI) has staged since its founding in 1999 was less about emotion and more about politics. It concerned the day's commencement speaker: Instead of a bleeding-heart liberal with a history of agitating for criminal justice reform, the person who addressed the inmates this morning, and received an honorary degree alongside them, was Cardinal Timothy Dolan, the Archbishop of New York, and one of the most influential conservative figures in the state.
Advertisement
Dressed in a crimson cassock and a traditional biretta hat, the Cardinal gave an impassioned speech that the leaders of BPI hope will be a turning point for the historically divisive politics surrounding college-in-prison programs. With the help of the Cardinal, BPI's executive director Max Kenner says, conservative politicians—the Catholics among them, especially—could become more comfortable with supporting such programs, which have been shown to significantly reduce recidivism, improve prison safety, and save money.
The idea of providing free higher education to inmates has long been met with fierce opposition from conservative leaders. Last year, when New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo floated a plan to support privately funded college-in-prison programs like BPI with state money, it was condemned by a chorus of politicians and quickly dropped from his proposed budget. "It is simply not fair to ask hardworking taxpayers to pay for college for convicted criminals when they struggle to put their own children through college," one Republican Congressman from New York was quoted as saying at the time.
It was an argument familiar to anyone who remembers the mid-1990s, when then–Texas Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison helped to effectively shut down college-in-prison programs all over the country by successfully pushing the Clinton Administration to make inmates ineligible for federal Pell Grants. These grants, which were previously available to anyone who wanted to go to college but could not afford it, had been the lifeblood of postsecondary correctional education in America: Before 1995, when the new rule was passed, the country was home to roughly 350 college-degree programs for prisoners; 10 years later, that number had dwindled to just 12. "Some convicts have figured out that Pell Grants are a great scam," Hutchison said at the time. " 'Rob a store, go to jail, and get your degree.' "
On Saturday, Cardinal Dolan struck a very different note: "To those who think that human fate is determined," he said, "that a change in life's direction is impossible—that a situation like a prison, that can lead to hopelessness and further degradation—that such a plight makes intellectual growth, a search for wisdom, a desire to improve ... impossible, I say, 'Let them come to Eastern Correctional! Let them see Bard College at work in these walls!' "
At a moment when criminal justice reform seems to be attracting allies from across the ideological spectrum—the likes of Rand Paul, Grover Norquist, Newt Gingrich, and the Koch Brothers have come out in support of measures that would make the American prison system less punitive—Cardinal Dolan's endorsement of so-called postsecondary correctional education could be the beginning of a shift in how politicians on the right think about the potential for correctional facilities to actually rehabilitate inmates. This is a man with great reserves of credibility among conservatives, after all—as the nation's most prominent Catholic bishop, he has spoken out forcefully against gay marriage and abortion—and also someone with a demonstrable interest in the messy world of lay politics. (Last year, in the wake of Eric Garner's death, he hosted a summit at his Madison Avenue mansion devoted to healing the rift between the NYPD and the public that was attended by Mayor Bill de Blasio, Al Sharpton, and local religious leaders.)
The fact that a prominent Christian leader visited a prison and spoke with compassion to its inmates is, in itself, not surprising: Cardinal Dolan has been making such visits for several years, delivering homilies and leading inmates in prayer. But his appearance at Eastern over the weekend was different, according to Max Kenner from BPI, because the statement he was there to make was, in many ways, secular.
"Archbishops and cardinals go to prisons all the time, but they do it in a pastoral function," Kenner told me. "This was much more of a political function."
"When you show up in a pastoral way, you show up to a mass, you talk to your congregants about your faith," he added. "What happened on Saturday was different than that, partly because it's a political issue, but partly because of the substance." While a commitment to education and care for people in prison are both central to the Catholic mission, Kenner said, "it's qualitatively different for a person, especially one who is as politically engaged as Dolan is, to come to a prison and serve a function that isn't explicitly religious."
Several prison reform advocates not involved in BPI echoed the point that Cardinal Dolan's decision to publicly support the concept of college-in-prison could have an impact on the political climate surrounding the issue.
"One way to encourage policy-makers to reconsider their position on criminal justice policy is to appeal to their morals," said Glenn Martin, who founded the recidivism-reduction organization JustLeadershipUSA after serving six years in prison for armed robbery. "A person like the Cardinal reminding Americans, reminding New Yorkers, that we have a moral obligation to forgive people, to engage in redemption and transformation—I think it's important, because our current criminal justice system doesn't have the moral underpinnings that we should have as a country that believes in second chances."
Even the most fervent opponents of college-in-prison can get on board with the idea of second chances, at least in theory. Reached by phone yesterday, Kay Bailey Hutchison, who ran for governor of Texas in 2010, told me she has never had a problem with the general concept of educating prisoners, as long as it doesn't take money away from hardworking families who need the help to send their law-abiding kids to college. Though her campaign against giving Pell Grants to convicted criminals caused some 27,000 incarcerated students around the country to lose their funding, Hutchison said her motivation for pursuing the legislation was narrowly centered around how the programs were funded, not the programs themselves.
"Anything we can do to help people who have made a mistake get a second chance is a good idea," Hutchison said. She added that she would even support using public funds at the state level to fund college-in-prison programs. "I think it's the right thing for a state to do ... It's in their interest, in many respects."
Hutchison's remarks are in line with what prison reformers believe is the open-and-shut case for college-in-prison programs, which have been decisively shown to reduce recidivism rates, thus making streets safer, prisons less crowded, and the correctional system less of a burden for taxpayers. According to a 2013 study by the RAND Corporation that analyzed 30 years of prior research, inmates who took classes as part of correctional education programs were 43 percent less likely to land back in prison than those who did not. Among the 500 or so students who have enrolled in the Bard Prison Initiative since it began, the recidivism rate is just 4 percent; the analogous number for the overall prisoner population in New York State is 40 percent. (For more statistics on the effects of prisoner education on recidivism, read this 1997 paper from the Journal of Correctional Education.)
The belief that prisons should be helping inmates prepare for life on the outside, and encouraging them to develop skills instead of merely punishing them, has been spreading on the right, said Heather Rice-Minus, a senior policy analyst at the Justice Fellowship, a Christian organization that was founded by former Nixon aide Chuck Colson to promote criminal justice reform.
"It's been really fascinating to see over time that figures like Chuck and others in the faith community, others in the conservative community, have really been able to have an impact on [people's] rethinking their positions on this," said Rice-Minus. Earlier this week, she noted, Justice Fellowship hosted a meeting of faith leaders on the topic of restorative justice that drew attendees from conservative groups like the Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute, Focus on the Family, and the Family Research Council. "I think what we're seeing," Rice-Minus said, "is that the faith community as well as conservative leaders stepping forward is giving more political cover for people to step away from the 'tough on crime' idea and to think about a more restorative approach."
It's worth noting that Cardinal Dolan may not follow through on his appearance at Eastern Correctional Facility with any active lobbying in support of programs like BPI. That said, he is planning on having Max Kenner as a guest on his Sirius XM radio show on Tuesday, and the blog post he wrote about his visit to the prison reads as an enthusiastic, unqualified endorsement. (Due to scheduling conflicts, the Cardinal was not available for an interview this week.) On Saturday, he carried himself more like a friendly uncle than the eminent, potentially influential leader that he is. Joking about the gray, ugly weather that the New York area had woken up to that morning, he asked the family members in the crowd, many of whom had driven to the prison from places like the Bronx, Brooklyn, and Flushing, not to blame him for the snow. "I'm in sales, not management," he said.
Whether the Cardinal will prove more capable of influencing the political climate than the actual one remains to be seen. But the fact that he has waded in to the extent that he already has is significant on its own.
No, they should rot.
Quote from: 11B4V on January 29, 2015, 01:22:06 AM
No, they should rot.
Cuts recidivism by 43%. That's a lot fewer crimes committed against innocent citizens, and a lot less of our tax dollars spent on supporting these guys in prison.
Other than the ability to afford it, I struggle to think of a single argument against it.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 29, 2015, 01:27:36 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on January 29, 2015, 01:22:06 AM
No, they should rot.
Cuts recidivism by 43%. That's a lot fewer crimes committed against innocent citizens, and a lot less of our tax dollars spent on supporting these guys in prison.
I would rather see a poor person, that doesn't have a chance to get a degree, get one. Not some POS criminal. Do that, then worry about the criminals. Every POS criminal you think about offering this to, instead offer it to a poor person.
I don't think inability to pay tuition is the chief reason for poor people to drop out of college - it's the inability to find time to do so as they have to earn their living. Unlike prisoners, who have time in abundance.
I don't see why this should be either/or choice though. Though I think for working people, some form of "converting experience to college degree" system, with light theory courses and exams, would be more useful than having them take full college courses.
Let them rot.
Quote from: 11B4V on January 29, 2015, 01:38:54 AM
Every POS criminal you think about offering this to, instead offer it to a poor person.
I'd offer it to everyone.
Quote from: 11B4V on January 29, 2015, 01:45:55 AM
Let them rot.
I think you are now the biggest idiot on Languish. Congrats.
Quote from: 11B4V on January 29, 2015, 01:45:55 AM
Let them rot.
Touche, an elegant and detailed rebuttal.
Let them eat rotten fruitcake!
Unless we keep prisoners in prisons indefinitely, we'll have to release them sooner or later. If these courses better prepare them for normal society and find employment, and thereby reduce the chance to commit further crimes, I don't see why not. Prisons already teach them vocational skills. Why not expand the programme to cover degree courses if the prisoners can do it? They have the time.
Quote from: 11B4V on January 29, 2015, 01:38:54 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 29, 2015, 01:27:36 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on January 29, 2015, 01:22:06 AM
No, they should rot.
Cuts recidivism by 43%. That's a lot fewer crimes committed against innocent citizens, and a lot less of our tax dollars spent on supporting these guys in prison.
I would rather see a poor person, that doesn't have a chance to get a degree, get one. Not some POS criminal. Do that, then worry about the criminals. Every POS criminal you think about offering this to, instead offer it to a poor person.
I agree that a poor person should get priority to receive education over prison inmates, all other things being equal. That doesn't mean the two are mutually exclusive. We can do both. Degree courses aren't prohibitively expensive.
I can see an argument for not offering educational opportunities to inmates serving life sentences with no chance for parole, or those on death row, but for the rest of the prison population, who are supposed to be released back into society, I can't see why not (other than lack of funding, as Marti alluded to).
Quote from: dps on January 29, 2015, 01:56:45 AM
I can see an argument for not offering educational opportunities to inmates serving life sentences with no chance for parole, or those on death row, but for the rest of the prison population, who are supposed to be released back into society, I can't see why not (other than lack of funding, as Marti alluded to).
I am not sure also if these courses are done in classes or by mail? If it's the latter, it probably costs peanuts.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 29, 2015, 01:49:29 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on January 29, 2015, 01:45:55 AM
Let them rot.
Touche, an elegant and detailed rebuttal.
Humor is a lost art here. 11B obviously is not so idiotic as to believe his stated position; he is clearly just pretending to be a troll to make us lol.
I have taught some distance course, and some of the students were long-term guests at various prisons around the region. I found, to be honest, that the work done by them and the communication with them showed such people to be among the smartest and best adjusted meth dealers and killers I had ever worked with.
Quote from: 11B4V on January 29, 2015, 01:38:54 AM
I would rather see a poor person, that doesn't have a chance to get a degree, get one. Not some POS criminal. Do that, then worry about the criminals. Every POS criminal you think about offering this to, instead offer it to a poor person.
And you realize how many poor people that "doesn't[sic] have a chance to get a degree" you would be rendering ineligible by excluding felons? There's huge overlap between the two groups.
Maybe exclude violent offenders or offenders who have been denied parole at least a certain number of times, but a lot of our prisoners are in for basic vice offenses, and many have gotten into vice trades by dint of not being able to afford post-secondary education or being able to start a career.
Actually, let me backtrack a bit. I'd narrow the eligibility further by adding a breach of trust requirement. So inmates convicted of nonviolent crimes not centrally involving a breach of trust (which is mostly white-collar crime, but there are some scam artists out there who shouldn't be working toward any fiduciary responsibility anytime soon).
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 29, 2015, 01:27:36 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on January 29, 2015, 01:22:06 AM
No, they should rot.
Cuts recidivism by 43%. That's a lot fewer crimes committed against innocent citizens, and a lot less of our tax dollars spent on supporting these guys in prison.
Are they committing fewer crimes on release or are they simply getting caught less because they are more clever and deliberate? :ph34r:
:D
More seriously I would be cautious re the recidivism statistics until verifying what efforts the study design made to eliminate selection bias. I.e. the sorts of people most likely to seek out and stay in such programs are also the people that are a priori less likely to reoffend on release, regardless of whether the programs were available or not.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 29, 2015, 11:01:19 AM
More seriously I would be cautious re the recidivism statistics until verifying what efforts the study design made to eliminate selection bias. I.e. the sorts of people most likely to seek out and stay in such programs are also the people that are a priori less likely to reoffend on release, regardless of whether the programs were available or not.
The study this references can be found here: http://www.rand.org/news/press/2013/08/22.html (http://www.rand.org/news/press/2013/08/22.html)
As one would expect for such a study, it argues that the
Quote... estimate is based on studies that carefully account for motivation and other differences between correctional education recipients and non-recipients.
How successful those studies are at such accounting remains unknown, of course.
I would note that the Rand study isn't about "degree-granting" programs as implied by the title of the thread. The lowered recidivism rates were also from studies about the even more popular education programs offered GED completion (which i don't think even Neanderthals/Republicans would oppose).
I don't believe in reeducation.
They should pay for their crimes, and pay hard.
This school thing would come out of our taxes, s0o fuck no.
Quote from: Martinus on January 29, 2015, 01:32:23 AM
Other than the ability to afford it, I struggle to think of a single argument against it.
How will law abiding citizens be able to compete with hordes of criminals with degrees on their resume from the local corrections facility?
Quote from: alfred russel on January 29, 2015, 12:34:58 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 29, 2015, 01:32:23 AM
Other than the ability to afford it, I struggle to think of a single argument against it.
How will law abiding citizens be able to compete with hordes of criminals with degrees on their resume from the local corrections facility?
They go do a stint in prison of course.
Of course they should.
The old Victorian idea of prison purely as a place of punishment just doesn't work. Prisons exist to try and cut down crime- both my taking dangerous people temporarily off the streets and trying to make them less dangerous when they get out. Givin them options beyond crime and taking them away from the university of how to be a better crook is a sensible way to do this
Quote from: 11B4V on January 29, 2015, 01:38:54 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 29, 2015, 01:27:36 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on January 29, 2015, 01:22:06 AM
No, they should rot.
Cuts recidivism by 43%. That's a lot fewer crimes committed against innocent citizens, and a lot less of our tax dollars spent on supporting these guys in prison.
I would rather see a poor person, that doesn't have a chance to get a degree, get one. Not some POS criminal. Do that, then worry about the criminals. Every POS criminal you think about offering this to, instead offer it to a poor person.
well, you already got the building, likely a few computers, gym, showers, dormitories, so all you need really, is a few teachers at 70k/year doing it part time. No big deal in terms of costs, imho.
And since, as Mono said, you're going to release them someday, might be better of if they don't return, it will save badly needed space. Cost efficient measure, I fail to see why we should oppose that. In fact, I thought it was already the case.
Quote from: Siege on January 29, 2015, 11:40:48 AM
I don't believe in reeducation.
They should pay for their crimes, and pay hard.
This school thing would come out of our taxes, s0o fuck no.
what about people who poison wells?
You know, we've been hear so long. I forget the origin of that meme. Did Siege actually claim to poison wells while in the IDF?
here
heer
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 30, 2015, 12:18:22 AM
heer
What does the German army have to do with prisons? Oh, wait.....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well)
I suppose this could apply to some of his broad-brush smears of Democrats/the Left/Obama etc.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 30, 2015, 12:15:50 AM
You know, we've been hear so long. I forget the origin of that meme. Did Siege actually claim to poison wells while in the IDF?
He was talking throwing goat carcasses down wells back as a form of retaliation.
In the new world, there will be neither very many felons nor very many degrees.
Does this not risk creating an incentive to commit a crime that will result in prison time in order to get a free degree?
We should be careful to make sure that this does not increase the crime rate.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 30, 2015, 12:15:50 AM
Did Siege actually claim to poison wells while in the IDF?
no, he said it was the only way to deal with Palestinians, never admitted to doing it himself, denying he ever did it.
Quote from: Siege on January 29, 2015, 11:40:48 AM
I don't believe in reeducation.
They should pay for their crimes, and pay hard.
This school thing would come out of our taxes, s0o fuck no.
So does the cost of their incarceration. You do want to
stop spending money on these people, right? :contract:
Quote from: Razgovory on January 30, 2015, 01:04:23 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 30, 2015, 12:15:50 AM
You know, we've been hear so long. I forget the origin of that meme. Did Siege actually claim to poison wells while in the IDF?
He was talking throwing goat carcasses down wells back as a form of retaliation.
Did he actually do it? If not, sounds like a pretty epic troll.
Quote from: Martinus on January 29, 2015, 01:48:35 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on January 29, 2015, 01:45:55 AM
Let them rot.
I think you are now the biggest idiot on Languish. Congrats.
He's definitely no Einstein, but in this case I think it's Beeb syndrome in play rather than IQ deficit syndrome. In his line of work, thinking about life's complexities is counterproductive. You need to live in the world where there are clearly good guys and clearly bad guys, and if reality doesn't cooperate, you need to find another reality. You can't do your job if you're capable of questioning whether you're making the world a better place or a worse place by just performing your duties.
Quote from: derspiess on January 30, 2015, 12:37:57 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 30, 2015, 01:04:23 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 30, 2015, 12:15:50 AM
You know, we've been hear so long. I forget the origin of that meme. Did Siege actually claim to poison wells while in the IDF?
He was talking throwing goat carcasses down wells back as a form of retaliation.
Did he actually do it? If not, sounds like a pretty epic troll.
I don't think it was either an admission or a troll. It was just a "you bring a knife, we'll bring a gun" kind of bravado. It doesn't mean that he admitted to shooting people.
Quote from: DGuller on January 30, 2015, 12:39:52 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 29, 2015, 01:48:35 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on January 29, 2015, 01:45:55 AM
Let them rot.
I think you are now the biggest idiot on Languish. Congrats.
He's definitely no Einstein, but in this case I think it's Beeb syndrome in play rather than IQ deficit syndrome. In his line of work, thinking about life's complexities is counterproductive. You need to live in the world where there are clearly good guys and clearly bad guys, and if reality doesn't cooperate, you need to find another reality. You can't do your job if you're capable of questioning whether you're making the world a better place or a worse place by just performing your duties.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcsammisrun.net%2Fimages%2Femots%2Frolleyes.gif&hash=e6502d92171c3afa8982a45dd178bd18394ad4a1)
In my line of work a great deal of time is actually spent criticizing the actions of police and other government officials. A prosecutor who lives in a world "where there are clearly good guys and clearly bad guys" is a really shitty prosecutor, and not one likely to last for very long.
However, the world is full of people willing to publicly criticize police and other government officials. Me, I keep my criticism confined to my job. But don't confuse my posting on languish as being the sole entirety of my thoughts.
I think he was joking. At least I took it that way.
Quote from: DGuller on January 30, 2015, 12:43:15 PM
Quote from: derspiess on January 30, 2015, 12:37:57 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 30, 2015, 01:04:23 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 30, 2015, 12:15:50 AM
You know, we've been hear so long. I forget the origin of that meme. Did Siege actually claim to poison wells while in the IDF?
He was talking throwing goat carcasses down wells back as a form of retaliation.
Did he actually do it? If not, sounds like a pretty epic troll.
I don't think it was either an admission or a troll. It was just a "you bring a knife, we'll bring a gun" kind of bravado. It doesn't mean that he admitted to shooting people.
He never said he did it, he never said he didn't--he just said he had been present when it occurred, because that's the kind of fucking psycho nutjob Zionist settlers he associated with.
In any case, he's a slice of human fucking filth.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 30, 2015, 03:21:46 PM
He never said he did it, he never said he didn't--he just said he had been present when it occurred, because that's the kind of fucking psycho nutjob Zionist settlers he associated with.
In any case, he's a slice of human fucking filth.
Or he just said that to get your overreaction.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 30, 2015, 03:21:46 PM
He never said he did it, he never said he didn't--he just said he had been present when it occurred, because that's the kind of fucking psycho nutjob Zionist settlers he associated with.
In any case, he's a slice of human fucking filth.
:rolleyes: Enough with the euphemisms and beating around the bush. Just say what you have to say.
Quote from: derspiess on January 30, 2015, 03:25:33 PM
Or he just said that to get your overreaction.
Meh, that was long before he knew which overreaction he would get.
Quote from: grumbler on January 30, 2015, 03:25:37 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 30, 2015, 03:21:46 PM
He never said he did it, he never said he didn't--he just said he had been present when it occurred, because that's the kind of fucking psycho nutjob Zionist settlers he associated with.
In any case, he's a slice of human fucking filth.
:rolleyes: Enough with the euphemisms and beating around the bush. Just say what you have to say.
grumbler is my all-time fave-rave Languish serviceman. :wub: :hug:
The rest of ya are just perpetratin'. Except Lusti, he keeps it real.
thanks, ass.
You never mailed me the necklace of Iraqi earlobes like you promised.
i was in Da Nang killing gooks.
And I didn't see the 'servicemen' part. I'm the ass. :(
Quote from: derspiess on January 30, 2015, 03:25:33 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 30, 2015, 03:21:46 PM
He never said he did it, he never said he didn't--he just said he had been present when it occurred, because that's the kind of fucking psycho nutjob Zionist settlers he associated with.
In any case, he's a slice of human fucking filth.
Or he just said that to get your overreaction.
Similar to how you are "just kidding" with over half of your posts?
Quote from: Tyr on January 29, 2015, 06:02:40 PM
Of course they should.
The old Victorian idea of prison purely as a place of punishment just doesn't work. Prisons exist to try and cut down crime- both my taking dangerous people temporarily off the streets and trying to make them less dangerous when they get out. Givin them options beyond crime and taking them away from the university of how to be a better crook is a sensible way to do this
The concept of reforming prisoners existed in the US prior to Queen Victoria.
Quote from: Warspite on January 30, 2015, 09:32:47 AM
Does this not risk creating an incentive to commit a crime that will result in prison time in order to get a free degree?
We should be careful to make sure that this does not increase the crime rate.
Serious? :unsure:
Some AIDs patients from mainland China and Vietnam deliberately bring a bullet into HK and turn themselves in. Since they can't afford the drugs back home, they choose to go to HK jail where they'll get free treatment. It is either jail or death for them. The bullet carries a ~10 year prison term in HK.
Quote from: Monoriu on February 01, 2015, 07:59:10 AM
Some AIDs patients from mainland China and Vietnam deliberately bring a bullet into HK and turn themselves in. Since they can't afford the drugs back home, they choose to go to HK jail where they'll get free treatment. It is either jail or death for them. The bullet carries a ~10 year prison term in HK.
I realize it's a little trickier for the Chinese since you're *technically* the same country, but you could at least just auto-deport Vietnamese that pull that stunt.
Hurray for apathy!
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/01/public_apathy_has_helped_criminal_justice_reform_republicans_and_democrats.html
Quote
Why Public Apathy Isn't All Bad
It has actually helped pave the way for significant criminal justice reform.
By Jamelle Bouie
A defining feature of the Obama era—or at least one of them—is polarization.
Voters, and especially activists, are more uncompromising than they've ever been. This isn't a bad thing. Activist intensity—backed by public interest—can force action and make parties more responsive to their voters. Intensity, for example, is one reason President Obama made his executive move on immigration, and it's one reason Republicans are trying to push back with condemnation and countermeasures. Likewise, intensity is what pushed Democrats to pass health care reform despite the huge political costs, and it's why—nearly five years later—Republicans are still trying to repeal the law and its benefits.
But, for as much as intensity contributes to politics, we shouldn't give short shrift to its sibling: public apathy. Apathy gets a bad rap, but when you look at its full place in the world of public policy, it's underrated.
To be clear, apathy's reputation isn't undeserved. Politicians have long used voter disinterest as cover for corrupt behavior. And on issues toward which voters aren't attentive—but interest groups are—the public can get shafted. But the same shadows that cloak the worst of our lawmakers can also shield the best of them. On issues with which the problems are severe and about which voters are indifferent, politicians have a chance to act effectively for the public good without watching their rears.
The best example is criminal justice reform. During the last decade, lawmakers across the country have pushed bold experiments in shrinking prisons and reducing incarcerated populations, unscathed by any kind of public backlash. In 2010, after two decades of ceaseless prison growth, Texas officials—supported by Gov. Rick Perry—moved to counter increasing costs of prison construction and incarceration with a new regime of treatment and mental health programs to give prosecutors and judges a third option besides jail or parole. It worked. The Texas inmate population has dropped from its peak of 173,000 in 2010 to 168,000 in 2013, without any increase in violent or property crime. Recidivism is down, and the state has saved an estimated $3 billion.
You see a similar story in Georgia, where Gov. Nathan Deal has led the state to drastically change its approach to criminal justice. In 2012, lawmakers passed reforms that gave prosecutors non-prison options for adults arrested for minor crimes, and that gave judges more options for drug offenses, with a goal of reserving prison beds for violent offenders. And in 2013 the state passed reforms that would place minor juvenile offenders in social service programs, skipping the criminal justice system entirely.
Likewise last year, Mississippi Gov. Phil Bryant signed a package with a similar set of reforms, including priority prison space for violent and career offenders, alternatives to incarceration for low-level offenders, and direct efforts to improve integration and reduce recidivism. And in Congress, a burgeoning coalition of Republicans and Democrats is working to reform several areas of the criminal justice system, from mandatory minimum punishments to asset forfeiture. On Tuesday, for instance, Minnesota Rep. Keith Ellison—co-chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus—joined Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul in reintroducing the Fifth Amendment Integrity Restoration Act, which would limit federal, state, and local ability to seize property from criminal suspects.
These changes are long overdue. As early as 15 years ago, we knew there were diminishing returns to incarceration. The steady growth of prisons and prison populations brought few additional gains to public safety. But 15 years ago, these reforms would have been impossible. Then, crime topped the list of concerns for the public. And while most Americans still believe crime is getting worse—a persistent feature of opinion polling on the question—actual criminal victimization is at its lowest level in a generation, and crime barely registers as an issue of national concern. (To that point, Sen. Paul and Rep. Ellison held a press conference for their bill. Six reporters came to the event.)
On crime, in other words, the broad public just isn't that interested. And as such, there isn't a strong incentive for "tough on crime" rhetoric, crime-focused politicians, or punitive anti-crime policies. But for those on the other side of the issue—for politicians who want fewer prisons and less incarceration—there's an opportunity to push reform without fear of attack. And slowly, lawmakers are taking it.
Thanks in part to public apathy, the country is beginning to make progress on one of our most important problems. But we shouldn't get too optimistic. Bills against asset forfeiture or for flexibility in sentencing are like the first few boards in a game of Ms. Pac-Man—easy to clear if you know what to do. To tackle the larger problems—overcriminalization, disinvestment in prison alternatives, and robust reintegration for former offenders—you need more: more will, more skill, and more support. You also need more money beyond the savings you gain from reform. And in politics, the moment you ask for cash is the moment the public starts to pay attention.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 30, 2015, 08:01:49 PM
Quote from: Tyr on January 29, 2015, 06:02:40 PM
Of course they should.
The old Victorian idea of prison purely as a place of punishment just doesn't work. Prisons exist to try and cut down crime- both my taking dangerous people temporarily off the streets and trying to make them less dangerous when they get out. Givin them options beyond crime and taking them away from the university of how to be a better crook is a sensible way to do this
The concept of reforming prisoners existed in the US prior to Queen Victoria.
Or in England. Jeremy Bentham (died in 1832) is considered the father of modern penitentiary.
Quote from: viper37 on January 30, 2015, 12:12:20 AM
so all you need really, is a few teachers at 70k/year doing it part time. No big deal in terms of costs, imho.
That would be lovely, but a $70,000 salary for teaching inmates part-time is pipe dream in the US. Half the money for double the work would be about the best available.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 02, 2015, 09:01:48 AM
Hurray for apathy!
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/01/public_apathy_has_helped_criminal_justice_reform_republicans_and_democrats.html
Quote
Why Public Apathy Isn't All Bad
It has actually helped pave the way for significant criminal justice reform.
By Jamelle Bouie
A defining feature of the Obama era—or at least one of them—is polarization.
Voters, and especially activists, are more uncompromising than they've ever been. This isn't a bad thing. Activist intensity—backed by public interest—can force action and make parties more responsive to their voters. Intensity, for example, is one reason President Obama made his executive move on immigration, and it's one reason Republicans are trying to push back with condemnation and countermeasures. Likewise, intensity is what pushed Democrats to pass health care reform despite the huge political costs, and it's why—nearly five years later—Republicans are still trying to repeal the law and its benefits.
But, for as much as intensity contributes to politics, we shouldn't give short shrift to its sibling: public apathy. Apathy gets a bad rap, but when you look at its full place in the world of public policy, it's underrated.
To be clear, apathy's reputation isn't undeserved. Politicians have long used voter disinterest as cover for corrupt behavior. And on issues toward which voters aren't attentive—but interest groups are—the public can get shafted. But the same shadows that cloak the worst of our lawmakers can also shield the best of them. On issues with which the problems are severe and about which voters are indifferent, politicians have a chance to act effectively for the public good without watching their rears.
The best example is criminal justice reform. During the last decade, lawmakers across the country have pushed bold experiments in shrinking prisons and reducing incarcerated populations, unscathed by any kind of public backlash. In 2010, after two decades of ceaseless prison growth, Texas officials—supported by Gov. Rick Perry—moved to counter increasing costs of prison construction and incarceration with a new regime of treatment and mental health programs to give prosecutors and judges a third option besides jail or parole. It worked. The Texas inmate population has dropped from its peak of 173,000 in 2010 to 168,000 in 2013, without any increase in violent or property crime. Recidivism is down, and the state has saved an estimated $3 billion.
You see a similar story in Georgia, where Gov. Nathan Deal has led the state to drastically change its approach to criminal justice. In 2012, lawmakers passed reforms that gave prosecutors non-prison options for adults arrested for minor crimes, and that gave judges more options for drug offenses, with a goal of reserving prison beds for violent offenders. And in 2013 the state passed reforms that would place minor juvenile offenders in social service programs, skipping the criminal justice system entirely.
Likewise last year, Mississippi Gov. Phil Bryant signed a package with a similar set of reforms, including priority prison space for violent and career offenders, alternatives to incarceration for low-level offenders, and direct efforts to improve integration and reduce recidivism. And in Congress, a burgeoning coalition of Republicans and Democrats is working to reform several areas of the criminal justice system, from mandatory minimum punishments to asset forfeiture. On Tuesday, for instance, Minnesota Rep. Keith Ellison—co-chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus—joined Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul in reintroducing the Fifth Amendment Integrity Restoration Act, which would limit federal, state, and local ability to seize property from criminal suspects.
These changes are long overdue. As early as 15 years ago, we knew there were diminishing returns to incarceration. The steady growth of prisons and prison populations brought few additional gains to public safety. But 15 years ago, these reforms would have been impossible. Then, crime topped the list of concerns for the public. And while most Americans still believe crime is getting worse—a persistent feature of opinion polling on the question—actual criminal victimization is at its lowest level in a generation, and crime barely registers as an issue of national concern. (To that point, Sen. Paul and Rep. Ellison held a press conference for their bill. Six reporters came to the event.)
On crime, in other words, the broad public just isn't that interested. And as such, there isn't a strong incentive for "tough on crime" rhetoric, crime-focused politicians, or punitive anti-crime policies. But for those on the other side of the issue—for politicians who want fewer prisons and less incarceration—there's an opportunity to push reform without fear of attack. And slowly, lawmakers are taking it.
Thanks in part to public apathy, the country is beginning to make progress on one of our most important problems. But we shouldn't get too optimistic. Bills against asset forfeiture or for flexibility in sentencing are like the first few boards in a game of Ms. Pac-Man—easy to clear if you know what to do. To tackle the larger problems—overcriminalization, disinvestment in prison alternatives, and robust reintegration for former offenders—you need more: more will, more skill, and more support. You also need more money beyond the savings you gain from reform. And in politics, the moment you ask for cash is the moment the public starts to pay attention.
Gee, thanks for ruining it, Tim. :mad: Now the voters will find out about all this reckless release of bad guys into society.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 30, 2015, 03:21:46 PM
Quote from: DGuller on January 30, 2015, 12:43:15 PM
Quote from: derspiess on January 30, 2015, 12:37:57 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 30, 2015, 01:04:23 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 30, 2015, 12:15:50 AM
You know, we've been hear so long. I forget the origin of that meme. Did Siege actually claim to poison wells while in the IDF?
He was talking throwing goat carcasses down wells back as a form of retaliation.
Did he actually do it? If not, sounds like a pretty epic troll.
I don't think it was either an admission or a troll. It was just a "you bring a knife, we'll bring a gun" kind of bravado. It doesn't mean that he admitted to shooting people.
He never said he did it, he never said he didn't--he just said he had been present when it occurred, because that's the kind of fucking psycho nutjob Zionist settlers he associated with.
In any case, he's a slice of human fucking filth.
I really hate it when you mothefuckers talk shit about me when I am not around to defend myself. Fuck you all.
And FYI, the pals in that area had been shooting the water towers and spraying petroleum at night time on the cultivated fields. They would come and pour used engine oil on the base of the orange trees.
Reports to the mishterot (local police) meant nothing. Rabin's goverment had the policy of not responding to crimes by the pals, but reacting violently against israelis when the pals made accusations.
Quote from: Siege on February 04, 2015, 01:44:16 PM
I really hate it when you mothefuckers talk shit about me when I am not around to defend myself. Fuck you all.
Stop passing out in your own vomit after a glass of apple cider.
QuoteAnd FYI, the pals in that area had been shooting the water towers and spraying petroleum at night time on the cultivated fields. They would come and pour used engine oil on the base of the orange trees.
Reports to the mishterot (local police) meant nothing. Rabin's goverment had the policy of not responding to crimes by the pals, but reacting violently against israelis when the pals made accusations.
I'm sure you and Deputy Enos taught those Duke boys a real lesson there, Sheriff Roscoe.
Just some light pranking, just like we all did in high school.
Prisons should offer non-STEM degrees. Prisons are for punishing evildoers.
Nothing but Gender Studies for prisoners.
Quote from: Siege on February 04, 2015, 01:44:16 PM
I really hate it when you mothefuckers talk shit about me when I am not around to defend myself. Fuck you all.
That's pretty much all we do in The Back Room.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 04, 2015, 04:25:14 PM
Nothing but Gender Studies for prisoners.
Ethnomusicology
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 04, 2015, 04:25:14 PM
Nothing but Gender Studies for prisoners.
That would still cost taxpayer money.
We need to find a way to freeze the fuckers or something.
A way to take them out of the street without the bleeding hard sheep screaming murder.
So much for the liberty part of your shtick.
Quote from: sbr on February 05, 2015, 11:50:29 AM
So much for the liberty part of your shtick.
I got no shtick, but i got a big, huge, massive, stick.
do you want me to stick you with it?
Quote from: Siege on February 05, 2015, 11:03:51 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 04, 2015, 04:25:14 PM
Nothing but Gender Studies for prisoners.
That would still cost taxpayer money.
We need to find a way to freeze the fuckers or something.
A way to take them out of the street without the bleeding hard sheep screaming murder.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fen%2F2%2F22%2FNo_escape_poster.jpg&hash=8495b219c0769450fee47aeb7dd8d563a96760ab)
Would be better than...
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fen%2F0%2F05%2FDemolition_man.jpg&hash=0bd4730b4a1299da4c711dddb609f1d821ba3492)
Quote from: Siege on February 05, 2015, 11:54:01 AM
Quote from: sbr on February 05, 2015, 11:50:29 AM
So much for the liberty part of your shtick.
I got no shtick, but i got a big, huge, massive, stick.
do you want me to stick you with it?
And you call yourself a Jew. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Siege on February 05, 2015, 11:03:51 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 04, 2015, 04:25:14 PM
Nothing but Gender Studies for prisoners.
That would still cost taxpayer money.
We need to find a way to freeze the fuckers or something.
A way to take them out of the street without the bleeding hard sheep screaming murder.
And another "liberty small government" dude basically wants the government to have absolute power, and anybody who disagrees is a sheep. I just do not get you guys. How does this "liberty small government" stuff work out practically?